Talk:A Voyage Round the World/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments
What a very welcome article on an inexplicable gap in Wikipedia's coverage. It's well written and well cited and I have only very minor comments to make. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these helpful comments, I'll try my best to address them over the next couple of days. —Kusma (t·c) 20:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please add the date to the painting caption.
 * While trying to do so, I discovered the painting has been traditionally mis-titled, which I hint at in the caption now.
 * You could wikilink the map caption to second voyage of James Cook.
 * Done.
 * I think the article does not quite do justice to the depth of review of the book. It might be wise to split the 'Reception and influence' material into two sections, 'Contemporary' (i.e. 1777 and thereabouts) and 'Modern', to precis some of the more entertaining reviewers' opinions, and to give at least a few small quotations from reviewers in both time-periods so the reader can get a feeling of what the reception actually was (and is).
 * I'll see what I can do, and will try to focus more on actual book reviews. There is a bit too much (and often too specialised) recent scholarly literature, especially in German.
 * Suggest wikilink Admiralty.
 * Done.
 * Background: starts abruptly. Perhaps what is missing is a sentence or two introducing the reason for Cook's voyages and the results of the first voyage.
 * Hope it is better now. Could be expanded further with a lot of the political background of how JR Forster had first aimed to be part of Banks' entourage (Hoare 1982)
 * Why was Daines Barrington involved? A gloss as to his position and role would be helpful here.
 * He was vice president of the Royal Society and of the Society of Antiquaries, and JR Forster had cultivated his as a supporting friend for a while (says Hoare 1982).
 * A gloss on John Hawkesworth (why was he chosen?) would help too.
 * Slightly expanded and found a reference to a mutual friend.
 * Lord Sandwich should be glossed and wikilinked at first mention in the article body (Background).
 * Done.
 * The book sold slowly: I take it you mean Forster's book rather than Cook's.
 * Clarified.
 * Authorship controversy: the arguments, which are deep-rooted, are summarized very briefly here. What would be very useful would be some sort of table of the different positions, with for each one the protagonist(s), a summary of the position, a brief mention of the types of evidence for that position, and possibly a brief quotation illustrating each point of view, with references.
 * I am not sure what the best way to do that is. I originally tried to give prominence to the 2000 edition by Thomas and Berghof. Unfortunately I don't have access to Dawson's thesis, which according to Peitsch's book (published around the same time as the 2000 edition) is the "most reliable account". It is difficult to separate opinion from scholarship here. Thomas/Berghof and Peitsch as the most modern sources attribute more authorship to Georg than traditional sources do.
 * Well, we can but try. I've written to U. Michigan asking for a copy. Let's see what they do. They say the author hasn't given permission for wider access, so the options are 1) purchase from ProQuest via http://dissexpress.umi.com/dxweb/search.html [publication number: 7415696] and 2) ask your library for an interlibrary loan of the print copy from the U. Michigan Library  https://search.lib.umich.edu/catalog/record/002152150. The latter may well be possible via The Wikipedia Library, or simply your local library.
 * I've asked at WP:RX, and people there were super quick and helpful. I'll report on Dawson in more detail tonight. —Kusma (t·c) 17:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that was impressive.
 * Indeed. I think I have too much material now. Anyway, I added something to the section. Let me know whether I made it worse.
 * Looks just right to me.


 * Contents: it seems a shame to have just one short paragraph here. Since the text is out of copyright, why don't we have a few quotations, and a summary of the book's contents? One approach would be to write a few lines on each chapter. Another would be to describe the book's approach, themes, and style, with examples, but that would probably need citing to secondary sources.
 * One difficulty with writing about every chapter is that I'm trying to write about the book, not about the journey. But if I spice it up with quotes from the text (such as your suggestion), it might come out ok.
 * L'art d'ennuyer consiste &agrave; tout dire ... (the art of being boring consists of saying everything): by all means be selective, but try to give an idea of what the book is about, and its flavour. I did my best on Wallace's The Malay Archipelago. See what you think.
 * Thank you -- I've been looking for some models of good articles about non-fiction books to emulate. —Kusma (t·c) 14:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Started working on something in my sandbox: User:Kusma/sandbox/A Voyage Round the World. Far from done. —Kusma (t·c) 23:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks very promising.
 * I've done about 30% of the text now, and am wondering whether I need to be more selective (at this rate, this will easily more than double the length of the article). What do you think? I'll focus on reviews for a bit. —Kusma (t·c) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the quotes need to be kept under control - only one or two longer ones, probably, the rest paraphrased. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * More than halfway through, trying to minimise extra quotes. Should appear in the article within a day or two. —Kusma (t·c) 23:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good work. The final quote is certainly too long, assume you haven't reached it yet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I know. And I have to break the "day or two" promise. Let's make that "after my antibiotics kick in and my fever goes down". Thanks for your patience. —Kusma (t·c) 16:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Get well soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've recovered enough to paste a first draft into the article, ready to be critiqued. —Kusma (t·c) 14:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty much ready. I think quite a few terms could be wikilinked (like sealions, for instance), and it's be worth editing the contents section for length while trying to say about the same thing as now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added links and trimmed a tiny bit. —Kusma (t·c) 17:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I expect it can be polished some more, but I think we've reached GA quality. Well done! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the helpful suggestions! —Kusma (t·c) 18:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)